Vern's Best Review Ever! Vern Vs BOBBY (The Movie, Not The Guy)!!

Hey, "Moriarty" here. Just wanted to drop in to present a review that made me stand up and applaud. I am not a mean man when I write about film. I don't think I take cheap shots at people. At least, I try not to. I think we all bubble over on occasion and... well...
... you remember when Vern fought and conquered the CHAOS DVD back in August?
Well, this is a better review.
Unless you are Paul Haggis. Or Emilio Estevez. Or pretty much the entire cast of BOBBY. In which case, you might want to go enjoy something over in Coax for a while, cause this... this gets ugly:

Question for you fellas:
Why is Emilio Estevez famous again? I can't think of many legitimately good movies he's in besides REPO MAN. People love their BREAKFAST CLUB, I think I liked STAKEOUT at the time, can't remember. I think now he mostly just directs TV shows, but that's not enough Gatorade to quench the artistic thirst for this guy. With his new all star ensemble BOBBY he's going serious. He's wearing two hearts, one on each sleeve, maybe even has his targets set on the Academy's notorious weakness for actors turned directors. Who knows what those chumps will fall for these days?
BOBBY is not exactly the story of Bobby Kennedy - he only appears in file footage (lots of it) and a few times played by a back-of-the-head double. Instead it's the story of the people who were in the Ambassador Hotel the night he was assassinated, including some of the other people who were shot in that kitchen. Of course, none of them are based on the actual historical figures, let alone actual recognizable human beings you might relate to. So I guess what it is is the story of a dozen or two lightly sketched stereotypes. You know, one of those day-in-the-life interweaving story type deals, but not convincing enough to make you feel like you're spending a day with anything but a bad movie.
The topic is different but this movie definitely wants to be CRASH. Not the pervy one where they have sex with flesh wounds and re-enact celebrity car crash deaths and then Deborah Kara Unger asks James Spader what Elias Koteas's anus looks like - I'm talking about the more ridiculous one by Paul Haggis. There's no getting around it, BOBBY is downright Haggish. You got the all-star cast of people representing different walks of life through broad cliche or hollow gimmick. You got the varied storylines of people all facing some Important Issue or Personal Struggle that's coming to its peak at the same time and place where Bobby is about to get shot. They even got the climactic musical montage where all the characters silently meet their fate or come to some kind of understanding or something. This time it's set to "The Sounds of Silence." They have a conversation about THE GRADUATE in the movie as if to admit "Yeah, I know, this song was already in THE GRADUATE." Maybe we should be grateful though - the one original song in the movie is an end credits gospel tune written by fucking Bryan Adams.
People are always worrying about the shitty horror movies that pour out whenever a SAW 1-3 makes a bunch of money, but we never thought to worry about CRASH imitators. In retrospect we should've seen it coming, they probaly should've put a JACKASS style disclaimer on that one. I know I discussed this with my readers and I found plenty of reasonable people who liked CRASH. But they know they are a small percentage of mainstream society. The one place in the world that movie went over like gangbusters was that part of Hollywood where they live in a biodome and have never met other human beings before or experienced actual life incidents, so it all seemed to make sense to them. Yeah sure, everybody is a horrible bigot and a saint at the same time, no two people can cross paths without exploding into racial controversy, everybody loves to challenge racial stereotypes by showing that they're all true, and Ludacris really uses the word "chinaman" all the time. And some rich racist lady might see the error of her ways because of an ass injury, why not? Since Hollywood loved that one so much it should be no surprise that a year later we got actors like Emilio Estevez writing and directing their own ridiculous Important and Meaningful CRASHalikes.
If you hated CRASH like I know most of you did, you will hate this horse shit too. In fact, CRASH might be a better movie. It's more ridiculous, more offensive, more self important and therefore more laughable, but it has more style to it. It is well directed at times. It has individual moments that, isolated from the rest of the movie, might be kind of effective. This one, as far as I'm concerned, never clicks at all. And at least CRASH is so off its rocker it gets a rise out of you. I still can't get over that scene where Ludacris finds out he's been driving around all day with a dozen illegal immigrants stuffed in the back of his van. And doesn't seem that surprised. And then another guy offers to buy them from him. BOBBY only has a couple parts that funny.
Let me give you an idea of the kind of shit you're dealing with here:
*Anthony Hopkins plays an old guy who works at the hotel, his job is apparently to play chess with Harry Belafonte and make a speech about all the famous people who have come to the hotel.
*William H. Macy is the manager of the hotel, he is married to the hotel stylist (Sharon Stone [ABOVE THE LAW] - I actually didn't realize it was her until I looked it up on IMDb just now, so give her points for that) but he is having an affair with switchboard operator Heather Graham. Because there really aren't enough stories about extramarital affairs in movies. Finally somebody had the balls to tackle this unique subject. Oh well, he's probaly wanted to screw Rollergirl since BOOGIE NIGHTS.
*Christian Slater plays the Haggish racist asshole kitchen boss. I usually enjoy Christian Slater but he doesn't get much to do here. In WINDTALKERS he got his head chopped off, in MINDHUNTERS he got frozen and shattered, in HOLLOW MAN 2 I forget what he did but it was probaly pretty good. Here I don't think he even dies, so what's the point of casting him?
*Lindsay Lohan (HERBIE: FULLY LOADED, various tabloid stories) plays a young girl marrying Elijah Wood (you nerds know who I'm talking about) so he won't have to go to Vietnam. She says some platitudes about how until someone in charge can tell us why we're over there she'll do her part to save young men's lives. Then the powerful Estevez character drama comes in when you find out SHE REALLY LOVES HIM! I'm not big on abstinence before marriage but when they find out they're in love, do they really have to screw right then even though they're getting married later the same god damn day? Is it that hard to keep it in your pants? Jesus, kids today. Er, yesterday.
*Since Bobby got shot in the kitchen they gotta go into the lives of the Mexican kitchen workers, represented by Freddy Rodriguez (the guy who got his nosering pulled out in PAYBACK) and Jacob Vargas (NEXT FRIDAY). They of course have arguments about whether they should call themselves Mexican or Latino and whether or not it is fucked up that Christian Slater forces them to work double shifts. They are the most sympathetic actors in the movie though, and their storyline about missing a historic baseball game that Freddy has tickets for is compelling compared to the other stuff going on in the movie.
Then head chef Laurence Fishburne (Morpheus) shows up to give one of those righteous speeches he's been doing since at least the days of Furious Styles. The berry cobbler he made sure looks delicious, but I don't buy this mumbo jumbo about how he followed the recipe but couldn't make it taste right because it had "no poetry, no light." I mean it sounds real good and all but it makes no actual sense, and chefs aren't really that superstitious. Nice try Emilio. Anyway, remember how there was a sign that said "the once and future king" taped to the wall in the kitchen where RFK was shot? In the movie Laurence writes it on the wall in grease pencil to compliment Freddy for giving him the baseball tickets. At first I felt sorry for Laurence for taking part in this but then I remembered that he was also an actor who directed a bad movie (ONCE IN THE LIFE) so maybe he deserves this.
*Estevez is in there as a henpecked former superstar jazz drummer who now lives in the shadow of his trashy lounge singer wife, played by Demi Moore. Moore is embarrassingly terrible playing a drunk bitch, and her plastic surgery is too good for the character and time period. Later she drunkenly confesses to Sharon Stone (that was really Sharon Stone? I can't get over that) that she is a drunk bitch, and I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be a touching moment of redemption, even though in real life that bitch would break down like that two or three times a day and it wouldn't change a thing. WASSUP ROCKERS had a way more believable version of this exact character, played by Janice Dickinson and with the added bonus that she got cartoonishly electrocuted in a jacuzzi.
*By far the worst storyline is the one about Shia LaBeouf (knows Michael Bay) and Brian Geraghty (knows McG) as campaign volunteers who are supposed to be knocking on doors for the California primary but instead end up doing acid for the first time and going to see PLANET OF THE APES. Yeah, that sounds more interesting than the rest of the movie but take my word for it, it's like a high school theater production of FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, these two geeks standing in their drawers looking at stock footage of Vietnam and Nixon, and various "oh dude I'm so high" type wackiness. And the worst part is Ashton Kutcher as their "comic" relief hippie drug dealer. There is no excuse for this shit. America doesn't deserve this. A significant portion of the audience I saw it with laughed at all these "jokes," but that's their problem. I guarantee you won't.
*The part you will laugh at though, which is not supposed to be funny, is the story of Martin Sheen (SPAWN) and Helen Hunt (TRANCERS I-II) as a couple staying in the hotel. You keep expecting Martin Sheen to be president, like in that one TV show, or like in the movie where he played JFK. But instead he's just a husband. Near the beginning Helen Hunt makes a big speech about why the color of shoes is important to women, and you think wow, Emilio Estevez must've really done alot of research on this thing, he's blown the lid off the secret inner lives of women. Then near the end Sheen makes a speech to her where he actually says "you are NOT your shoes!" and makes profound declarations about our lives being more than just "stuff." This speech is a classic - finally, some solid laughs instead of just squirming and eye rolling. I'm sure that shoe line will become a favorite quote among friends who suffer through this movie together.
The writing of this thing is pure amateur hour. Estevez throws in annoying references to popular culture of the time. He's gotta have people talk about BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE GRADUATE and there's a painful conversation where Martin Sheen makes fun of Helen Hunt for buying "a painting of a soup can." GET IT, A PAINTING OF A SOUP CAN! ANDY WARHOL! I THINK SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW WHICH PAINTING HE IS TALKING ABOUT! NUDGE NUDGE! I think RFK really was shot the day after Warhol was, so it's fine that they mention that, but jesus man think of a better way to bring it up.
This isn't all nostalgia, it's obviously supposed to be about today too. You probaly caught the Vietnam/Iraq parallel and then they throw in a couple parts talking about the new computer voting and how it will be easier. A guy from the Kennedy campaign demonstrates how punchcard voting works and says something like "or as the boys at IBM call them, chads," and all the squares in the crowd I saw it with laughed right on cue. If you like watching tapes of old Jay Leno monologues you'll enjoy all the great jokes here. Too bad they couldn't work in a Judge Ito reference somewhere, that would've been pretty topical.
Like Spike Lee going crazy with the blackface montages in BAMBOOZLED, Estevez has to include all of his research in the movie. So it opens with a surprisingly long collection of footage of the real Kennedy and various images of war and protests. And then in the middle of the movie it does it again. And again later on in the middle. And again at the end. And then there's a photo montage during the end credits. And clips of RFK speeches playing on TVs that the characters are near. And a recording of one of his speeches over the endless slow motion assassination aftermath scene. Archival recordings are the only real presence of Kennedy felt in the movie, you sure as hell don't get any inspiration from what's going on with the actual characters. So maybe it was a good idea to include it. On the other hand it makes you just want to watch a documentary, and you get fed up with the overblown scoring behind the speeches. WE GET IT, you love the guy and everything he stands for. So you decided to honor him with a bad movie.
The idea of making a movie about this topic at this time is understandable. Alot of people were really inspired by RFK, they liked his vision for a better tomorrow (not the movie A BETTER TOMORROW, I am talking about the abstract concept). He had that leadership thing, he inspired people, people listened to him. When Dr. King was killed, RFK made that speech that really calmed alot of people down and helped them get through it. Then two months later he gets killed, and who's left to make a speech? Who's left to dream? Alot of people now have a similar one-two-sucker-punch-to-the-balls feeling about the last, oh, let's say six years of American history, and want to see somebody like RFK that maybe can help change things for the better. If he doesn't get shot.
Estevez obviously feels strongly about that. Just the word BOBBY seems to be imbued with deep meaning to him. You can tell by the violins playing at the beginning when the screen just says BOBBY in giant white letters on black. And then at the end when it says BOBBY again in giant letters. And then also after the credits when there's another huge BOBBY. I didn't stay for after the MPAA rating but I'm sure there was a couple more then. This thing is well intentioned but that doesn't mean it's good. I mean come on dude, a wife learning that she's using expensive shoes as a crutch? That's the deep meaning we're supposed to get out of the guy's life? The whole thing is so shallow and contrived that it does damage to the dream. The storyline about Anthony Hopkins (BAD COMPANY ) leads us to believe that the shocked look on his face when he finds out about the assassination is not because he believed in Kennedy's vision of equality and peace, but because it sucks for something bad to happen at his hotel. The only emotion that comes out of this movie is during the assassination scene, thanks not to Emilio Estevez but to fucking Sirhan Sirhan. On the other hand, you can tell the movie is almost over. Hopefully you've never been so happy to see a Kennedy get shot.
But why does it end there anyway? I'm not complaining, I was happy to leave, but if this is really the story of these people and not Bobby Kennedy, why does their story end when he gets shot? It might be more interesting to see what it was like working at the hotel for the rest of the night. Anthony Hopkins staying up late talking to hotel guests about his feelings. I smell a part 2.
I don't know, I guess some people will like it. There was what seemed like sincere applause at the end of the screening. I doubt they were applauding the assassination so I have no choice but to assume they really liked the movie. The guy from THE MIGHTY DUCKS and DAWSON'S CREEK was supposed to be there for a Q&A (he and Nick Cannon play campaign staffers in the movie) but he didn't make it. That would've made for some humorous discomfort listening to the questions that would've been asked by people who really thought this was a great movie. Oh well, maybe he'll make it for that sequel.
thanks boys,VERN

Vern always nails it. Crash bought its Oscar with vouchers and gift bags to the acadamy voters worth hundreds of thousands of bucks. brokeback simply didn't have the money. paul haggis also made a few scientologist phone calls to seal the deal. I love robert kennedy, and I was really hoping this had a chance, but it sounds awful. it sounds like Vern is right to compare it to Crash, and nothing could make me think it was a smellier pile of shit than that. unless he compared it to Bloodrayne. even then, it's a toss up. I can't tell you how many people I know loved Crash, which I hated like a nazi guacamole dip (I hate avocadoes...and nazis) and when I'd ask them why, they'd have this sort of lost, glazed over look in their eyes, as they stammered on. usually the words, "powerful" and "meaningful" would pop out, but they couldn't say WHY it was really any good. I think people see a movie like that and think they're SUPPOSED to like it, so they feel unfit to judge it based solely on its merits. oh well, at least the election was great tonight!

But this is not my best review. There is no way Emilio Estevez will challenge me to a duel over this, although that would be cool. I think whoever complains I went on too long will be right this time, and I really didn't get at the main problem: most of these storylines really don't have much to do with Bobby Kennedy and what he stood for. The most interesting one is about baseball. Also I want to reiterate that it is a well meaning movie, I got no ill will towards these people, and I like most of these actors (especially Fishburne).

it is not close to Vern's best. (I can't yet say which is Vern's best, but off the top of my head I remember that Vern's reviews of "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Finding Neverland" were better and more Verny than this good review.) Moriarty gets a C-minus in Vernology.

so what's the point of casting him?"
<p>
Sadly, since you didn't discuss your desire to relive the assassination-day sex with Lindsay Lohan I fear this TB won't be as much fun.
<p>
Actually, I don't think there's going to be much arguing...unless there's a Crash fan or two in the crowd.
<p>
And oh yeah! Great review.

I liked this review of Bobby very much, and I do not think it was too long. In fact, from my perusing of your web sight, I think I like the long ones best. There's a great take on The Fast And The Furious (which is barely even about The Fast And The Furious) that I'd recommend to anyone with twenty minutes to spare.

Anytime I see a group of actors come together for what they think is a good cause in a movie it is always campy. That’s because actors have no idea about the real world and they honestly think their over the top caricatures of people are very real and very gripping.
Haggis should not be allowed to work again. The last good thing he wrote went something like this:
INT. BAR – NIGHT
Walker gives roundhouse kick to thug.

Maybe Vern will be happier seeing Rocky XXV than a well acted movie with a meaning. Bobby got very good reviews in Venice, I liked it a lot and even the guy here admits it was applauded at the end of the screening.

The berry cobbler he made sure looks delicious... he followed the recipe but couldn't make it taste right because it had "no poetry, no light."? If so that and the shoes thing nail why this movie is poor. The writing. Even I have to admit Haggis can write a bit. Thanks for the review, I wanted this one to be better but what is it they say about good intentions...?

Ah well. Oh, and Hopkins' character didn't work at the hotel did he? I kinda thought he had retired, but had literally nothing else to do, and so hung out at the hotel that he loved so much.
A critic in Europe said that this film reminded her "of a time when the rest of the world loved America". I agree. The film made me wonder what it would be like to have world leaders who actually 'inspired' us to greater things. It seems now, in our day and age, the people who are 'inspiring' us are people like John Stewart and Michael Moore. America suffered greatly in 1968, and it has never fully recovered.
It was a great review, and funny as hell. I just got something different out of the movie. (I didn't like CRASH much however).

Forgive my cribbing a line from High Fidelity, but how can it be wrong to state a preference? He admits others in the crowd liked it, sure. That seems to be their problem. I read this review because I value Vern's opinion on movies (if it weren't for him, I never would've revisited the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre). I also think he's a funny fucker when he doesn't quite dig something, and I like to laugh. You should learn to take your own preferences less seriously, blueberry, and realize it's okay to disagree with someone without trying to undermine the legitimacy of his or her position. Especially when you're talking about fucking subjective experiences of art.

I love these types of reviews where the guy reviewing supposedly hates the film but in reality he went into so much detail recalling the film and spent so much time writing the review that you just know he really loved the film. When I see bad films I just want to forget about them, not write an essay!

Poor poor cynical Vern, has the weight of the world finally broken your spirit my friend? Perhaps you, Shia, Aston Kutcher and his Mom, er, wife, should drop some acid and watch the movie again... only then will the true symbolism of the shoes touch your inner child in an inappropriate place.

I have to admit, at first I thought the "Damn you, Michael Bay" thing was annoying, but I’ve gradually become impressed by his tenacity in showing up on every single board and posting it. Instead of being annoyed, now I laugh when I see it, especially with the appearance of the MichaelBay poster who is screaming “Damn you, MCMLXXVI!"

Emilio has always seemed like an early 80's Nic Cage, only way less coked-up. But, Vern: The Outsiders, Repo Man, The Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire, Maximum Overdrive, Stakeout, Young Guns, Men at Work, Freejack, The Mighty Ducks, National Lampoon's Loaded Weapon 1, Judgment Night (long stretch of Duck sequels and straight to video nonsense) and Bobby. Now, I’m not saying he’s George “Fucking” Murphy but he has entertained us with good to great, always sincere performances from a dozen films or more. So, lets give the guy a little more credit then just one single film to justify his public worth. Hey, at least he didn’t turn out like his brother.

i know it'll be a bad day coz it's already peaked reading that review. from the realization that, indeed, bryan adams was singing some fried-snickers-bar song in the trailer, to the other realization that emilio probably had a wife-swapping party and all his friends showed up and he got them trashed and then convinced them to be in his movie, this whole thing has smelled a bit rotten, probably despite best interests. i'm still laughing about the berry cobbler bit, also.

I laugh every time I see the posts. I look for them in new TBs. Not because "Damn you Michael Bay" is funny, but because MCMLXXVI's sheer perseverence is both admirable and daunting. I hope to see DYMB posts for the rest of my life. I hope to see it spread to other sites, including non-movie sites. MCMLXXVI will become an internet legend. At least, I hope so.

Crash gets ridiculously hated. If you want to see a contrived where people act like aliens all in service of a contrived then look no further than ridiculously overhyped Little Children. I have a hard time believing anyone bought the ridiculous pedophile storyline (crass pool scene included) especially the last 20 minutes when the story goes from contrived to all out silly. All the reasons people whine and whine about Crash can be applied to Little Children.

There's no way anybody can make a more relevant and important ensemble cast film than Love Actually. Syriana, Traffic, Magnolia, Crash and now Bobby can all bugger off for wasting the world's time with such silly issues.

There are plenty white liberals like me think Crash is crap. The issue was never the existence or non-existence of racism. What makes Crash a terrible film is its cliched, pretentious, Magnoliesque, beat-you-over-your-skull approach to showing everyone how pervasive and corrosive racism is. Yes. We get it. Racism is evil. Next, they plan on making a three hour epic about how the lives of ten ordinary New Yorkers are forever changed by the revelation that water is wet. Give us something new or shove off. Oh, and for the second time today, ALOT IS NOT A GODDAMN WORD.

Vern Man, Where do you come up with this stuff? Did you get trained in sarcasm and expert referencing objects to thier corresponding badness (Associating each actor's name with a bad movie they were in?)

Vern is 100% right. The only tie in to RFK this movie has is the title, the constant archival clips that popup on every television set and the fact that it was shot in the same hotel. I don't understand the point of making a film about RFK's last day on earth without using the storylines adapted from the actual people that were in the hotel. The only guy that was based on a real character was Freddy Rodriguez' kitchen cook and he's in the film for about 10 minutes. Oh and Nick Cannon and Ashton Kutcher almost completely ruin the entire film with every second they are on screen.

Nice review, Vern. I could smell this a thousand miles away. Crash sucked horse testes and this does too, I'm sure. Fucking annoying how Emilio packed the cast with name actors, especially since most aren't particularly good actors. Lindsay Lohan? Nick Cannon? Ashton Kutcher? Shia Lebaobaoyudgdf? What the fuck?

Thing is, Crash became this "phenomenon" to people OUTSIDE the normal realm of moviegoers. (btw, I despise Crash, just so we're clear) People that I know who rarely go to the theater heard about how it was made for little money, and was so "powerful", blahblahblah. Then it was the little movie that could, hanging around theaters long after it should have been gone. When my DAD sees something and tells me about it, that's when I know it's crossed a line. My point is, Little Children has hardly reached that stage, and so can remain un-criticized by the geek masses. (for now)

FUCK YOU UP YOUR STUPID ASS.
What is it with the Crash hate? It's a great movie that's touching. Did Haggis ever say that it was supposed to be true to life. It'a fucking movie that uses extremes to make a point about race in our society. Not to mention it's emotionally wrenching in a good way. And I've got news for you. The majority of America likes Crash so you got that backwards dude. Everyone I know and have talked to except my moronic sister loves Crash. The only peopel that don't like it are pricks like you and other douchebags that come to this site and wish they could be real film critics and not emotionally stunted immature morons who have no lives.

Good work with the double post. Yeah, I remember you, you were that hideous girl who defended that Transformers movie while simultaneously giving Michael Bay a "rusty trombone." Don't think I haven't forgotten who you are.

We need Charlie Sheen as director. But one mega ensemble cast film won't do for Tupac. We need something to top Kieslowski's 10 film Decalogue about random intersecting characters dealing with shooting of Mr. Thug Life himself.

blow it out your ass, me thinks thatv ern meant anyone that MATTERS or has half a brain will realize that a movie sold based on white guilt has already been done and done better... it was called do the right thing... your local video store should have a copy on hand

Paul stinks. That doesn't mean he should not be allowed to make films or that people should shy away from defending them. Crash is a plain and simple genre flick about the social/political relationships between various class groupings in modern America. The ideas discussed in the film, namely assaulter/assaulted and racist/persecuted are topics that have been brought to the screen many times before. Some were better, others worse but the sheer division between people who either like or dislike Crash is fairly interesting and pretty sad for those of us who devote time to its legitimacy. Oh, who the hell am I kidding? Crash was tacky, conventional pap fit for the elderly and people with pacemakers. But at least it got Tony Danza off the couch. Is that a good thing?

Man Crash was GARBAGE. How can you accuse Vern of being an Neocon when the movie was offensive to almost everybody. You had the batshit crazy middle easterner, all the black characters were either thugs, sellouts, or drug addicts who for some reason favored a n'er do well son over the one who actually took care of her. What sense does that make? The cops were all corrupt(actually, living in L.A. for the past couple of years that one might be kind of accurate). There were just wrong moments throughout. Most people I know would file a complaint of some sort after getting felt up by the cops. ESPECIALLY BLACK PEOPLE IN L.A.!!! Hello!! And don't they have cameras in their patrol cars? I mean that shit would have been recorded. The tape would have been lost of course(I read about that kind of stuff in the times alot, I mean a lot.) but wouldnt it be recorded? And the way Larenz Tate died. Why didn't he just tell him what was so funny? Was it that big a deal? It seemed so contrived. Man I could not BELIEVE that this won a best picture oscar over Syrianna, Good Night and Good Luck and especially, Brokeback Mountain. But you know what, I stopped taking the oscars seriously after Dances With Wolves and Lethal Weapon Wallace. Peace

On that alone, I either feel Oprah is full of fucking shit and too big on her own fucking ego and she could be right or wrong about this, or this movie will absolutely not interest the public at all. She had Emilio Estavez and Lindsay Lohan crying on her couch over this. Lindsay was just acting very poorly, cause there was nothing for the bitch to cry about really. On that note the funniest quote I've ever heard or read about Lindsay Lohan comes from Borat on taking a photograph with her. "Thanks for the photograph, but I do not know who this boy is." LOL You fucking rock Borat.

no matter what. There are a shit load of movies with that crash formula. Crash did not invent the following different character archs throughout a movie formula (among others were Traffic, Pulp Fiction, Lord of the Rings even and many other movies that try to juggle more than 2 or 3 characters)... So sorry your attention deficit disorder cant grasp the intricate balance of following a few character archs. As for your bullshit cliche argument about them all being made up characters. That's bs. If you did any research you'd know that half of the characters he has in it are real life people including the woman who decided to marry a soldier to keep him from going to the frontlines and onto germany. As for crash you've obviously a fucking braindead redneck. You dont seem to grasp that the movie hit a chord with a lot of academic circles. THE FILM WAS MEANT TO DISCUSS RACE RELATIONS YOU FUCKNIT. It wasn't trying to have non bigoted people in it. That's why they all clashed. It wasn't fucking saying that ev eryone is a fucking racist. It was just saying that some people are. They're not bad people, they just dont understand. And dont give me that shit that when your alone at night at fucking bus stop and agroup of black rapper wannabe's pull up right beside you to wait for a bus your not going to sidestep away. SO STFU. The movie was trying to bring out the nuances of racism. The movie was trying to show you that some fucking cops are racist, rich people, politicians, lawyers, poor people, any fucking body can be a racist. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE WAS DRIVING AROUND ALL DAY YOU IDIOT? you dont know what time it was when he picked up that van.. he could have picked it up at 6 or 7 and the sun set at 8 just driving it over to the shop you fucking retard.... Im going to see this movie and I'm going to enjoy it. Someone please stuff a sock in vern's std infested mouth.

I really enjoyed Freejack. That part in the diner where that bum tells the waitress "I waited 20 minutes for this shit?!?" is priceless. Plus the movie had an interesting plot but I think the story delved into B movie territory a bit which lost it a few points. Overall, I thought it was an underrated, intriguing film that deserved better than it got. Plus Rene Russo was nice to look at too.

Man, you can't use "nuance" when talking about this film. Who gives a crap if it got an academy award? It's still a crappy film. What frickin' academic circles liked this stuff? Was this supposed to be real life? That shit was about as real as alice in wonderland.

(sorry) Anyroad, this one smelt like a Matterhorn of amoebic dysentery a mile off and our boy confirms it with his customary wit and merciless references. Sad, since now any decent RFK film is tainted. On the other hand, maybe it's for the best; maybe any Hollywood effort would just sell short both the man and what he meant. The divine Vern is dead on about Crash, too and we all know it, even some of us who grudgingly admired some of the individual work amidst the nonsensical plot mechanics and bizarre character motives. First time I've laughed at an Anchorite post, though, so it could still be a good day.

When I saw the trailer, I asked myself, "why is the target audience for this film?" I mean, is there anyone under the age of 40 that really is interested in a movie that basically seems to be about how great a loss the death of Bobby Kennedy was?<br><br>To me this just seems like another film about how great and important the stupid baby boomers are. I think they have given themselves enough pats on the back. They don't need me to give them one too.

Everybody knows the best ensemble cast film already has Emilio in it - it's St. Elmo's Fire. But I want to address that clown shoe with the wolf name who thinks that because Crash won an Academy Award, then it must be good. (Just re-reading that sentence is making me giggle) You must have been hiding under a toadstool when it hit the media that Crash won because the Writer's Guild stuffed the ballot boxes as payback to the Academy. On second thought, you might not have known that, since you obviously don't work in the industry.

was not it's premise. I am sure an interesting ensemble film about racial politics in contemporary LA can be made. I am sure it can even wear it's earnest liberal heart on it's sleeve and still be a compelling movie. That's not the problem. The problem was that NONE OF THE DAMNED CHARACTERS RESEMBLED ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS. They were simply cardboard stand ins for Haggis' simple minded platitudes and dirt-dumb "insights". It was a badly constructed script whose narrative shortcomings made the pedantic speechifying that much more annoying. I think Vern made that pretty clear in his review. I am one white liberal who agrees with Vern 100 percent. If you want to see a GOOD movie with similar themes adn poilitcal outlook, check out "Lone Star". Paul Haggis is no John Sayles.

movie done Bobby-style? I thought Estevez had been working on this for like 12 years or something. Doesn't that mean Bobby came up with that style first, and Crash sorta reverse-copied it? The script's been floating around long enough that Haggis coulda copied it stylistically.

So you did watch Texas Chain Saw again? I never heard about that. Please email me (outlawvern at hotmail dot com) or point me to a talkback where you gave your verdict. I'm real curious what you thought.

Although I haven't been challenged to wrestle, this is definitely the first time I have been accused of being a fucking republican! That's a good one. I'm about as liberal as they come, but if I agree with the politics and the movie sucks I will say just that, I won't pretend it's a good movie. After all, it's possible to do both (see THEY LIVE).<p>
That said, I don't think this movie is all that political, there is not a whole lot to disagree with. Like I said, I can get behind the (kind of cliche) notion of RFK as this bastion of hope and inspiration, but the rest of the movie is about getting high and learning not to shop too much. There's kind of a disconnect between the Bobby footage and the movie.<p>
As for CRASH, sorry for opening that can of worms, but I guess since most people haven't seen BOBBY yet it will have to do. I agree that that movie is not meant to be realistic. I don't have a problem with all the coincidence and what not, it is obviously a stylistic device and it's one that can work. But there is supposed to be an essential truth behind the device and in that movie I don't think there is. As somebody pointed out to me, the movie is actually arguing that the racial stereotypes are true! The black guys really are carjackers, the white people really are bigots and molesters, the successful black guy really is a sellout who doesn't care about his people, etc. Of course I'm not disagreeing that there is racism in the world, but I think by portraying it in such a ludicrous, over-the-top manner you're not really raising awareness of the problem. I mean seriously, what was that "chinaman" shit about?<p>
Somebody else brought up DO THE RIGHT THING, which is the movie I kept thinking of when I watched CRASH. Obviously they're not exactly the same, but both are one day in the life of a neighborhood where different races (including white cops) clash and tension boils over. And DO THE RIGHT THING even uses its own stylistic devices like the boxing over the opening credits, the repeated use of the song "Fight the Power" as an anthem and the scene where everybody looks into the camera and unleashes a machine gun blast of racial slurs.<p>
But guess what, DO THE RIGHT THING still rings true today. The characters are (to me) much more relatable to real human beings, even with names like Buggin Out and Sweet Dick Willie. Compare Sal or Pino to Matt Dillon's character and tell me which one you believe more. And what happens to them feels much more true because it's building up through the whole movie before it explodes. People don't just flip out every time they see another race. <p>
And by the way, Wolf Venom, it's funny that you mention it because I do take the bus alone at night and yes there are "black rapper wannabes" who share my bus stop and no, I don't leave! How the fuck do you catch your bus with a sissy attitude like that?

A Neo-Con is a complete idjit. You would do well to be more well read in your Vernitude before you go throwing accusations his way. Try a coupla 'Vern tells it like it is' over at his web site and you'll probaly not look like such a twit. Or something.

I though Crash was pretty good. Better than most of the crap that was released in 2004-2005. Probably shouldn't have won the Oscar (but personally I thought Batman Begins should have won as it's my fave movie) but the 'right' movie never wins.

An LA-based production, with an LA writer/director, and an LA star ensemble, shot in LA, won the top award by the LA-based academy...wow. shocker. besides, Kubrick never won an oscar, nor did his movies. your gonna tell me Crash is better than A Clockwork Orange? or Full Metal Jacket? Or Barry fucking Lyndon? because haggis has a couple of lil statues?

...The Mighty Duck guy I swear to God.
Seriously though, doesn't anyone else wonder where Charlie is in this whole debacle? Big daddy gets a role, but brother is left on the set of Two and A Half Laughs?

"You keep expecting Martin Sheen to be president, like in that one TV show, or like in the movie where he played JFK."
How could you forget "The Dead Zone"? (the christopher walken movie, not the anthony michael hall tv show). okay, i'll grant you that he was only president in that movie in the future, when he starts nuclear armageddeon, but c'mon, i know you live in imdb.com... rememember that great creepy scary line of his as president?: "The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!"
otherwise, an excellent and funny vern review, as usual

man I miss those Chaos guys. I think the doorway to true evil is opened more by half-a$$ed mediocre pretentious pieces of crap like Bobby than anything else... Anyway, glad to hear Vern telling the truth on this one. The trailer was AWWWWFUL. I sincerely wonder about people who think Lindsey Lohan can act. What are they seeing that I'm not??

I'm pretty centrist, myself, but I'll tell ya... Sissy left-wing movies make me want to harm myself, and bad-ass films filled with right-wing rhetoric make me want to stand up and cheer. Cases in point: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN versus INVASION USA. Brokeback mountain is an awful, awful film about things I believe people should be allowed to do. INVASION USA is an awful, awful film about things I believe nobody should be allowed to do. However, when watching BM (pun intended), I don't laugh my fucking ass off and feel as though I've had a great time watching, like I do watching INVASION USA. The rewatchability of that film is incredible. This is not to say, however, that left-wing films must be boring and a waste of time/money; To wit... JFK. A great four-hour film that seems like it lasts twenty minutes, and raises your hackles like a good ol' fascist polemic. The moral of this story is this: Look both ways before crossing the street.

The moral I threw out there was supposed to be abstract and ridiculous, and now that I read it, it seems to have some deeper meaning within the context of what I said before it... Just so's you know, it wasn't supposed to.

I initially liked your point, but I've come to realize Brokeback Mountain (which I kinda liked at first but started disliking more and more the more I thought) actually has a traditionalist, conservative viewpoint of gay people. Gay characters in films as a rule must be violent and spiteful toward women, and must either:
1) die by bashing
2) die from AIDS, or
3) be made to be celibate and unfulfilled, either by trauma or by virtue of ugliness (no one wants up in 'em)
It's not as namby-pamby "yay gay" as people have accused.

No strength to write my true feelings...
IT SUCKED MY WILL TO LIVE...
Last 15 minute was worth the price of my small Diet Coke...
My Balls smell better than this film was...
Crash made me want to burn a theater down though...
do you like my use of...?